Lord Hylton: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	How many looked-after children abscond or disappear from their placements every year; what proportion of them are found again within six months; and what preventative action they are taking.

Lord Rooker: Last year, following extended public consultation on a review of the existing sentencing framework, the Government announced proposals for a radical change to the structure of sentencing in Northern Ireland. I refer the noble Lord to the Written Statement made on 5 December 2006 (WS 117), which outlines these proposals.

Lord Davies of Oldham: The current role attracts £68,390 per annum for a commitment of 144 days per year. In considering the appropriate time commitment for the future chair we reviewed the needs of the body and the role in conjunction with English Heritage, including the commissioners, and have agreed that90 days a year is appropriate. This does not represent a downgrading of the role but reflects the fact that English Heritage's modernisation programme has been completed and a greater time commitment will no longer be necessary. The remuneration level for the new chair has been set at £45,000 per annum, representing a small pro-rata increase. We recognise the importance of the role of the chairman of English Heritage and we are making every effort to identify a suitable successor to build on the excellent work of Sir Neil Cossons.

Lord Davies of Oldham: The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician, who has been asked to reply.
	Letter from Karen Dunnell, National Statistician, to Lord Mason of Barnsley, dated 22 March 2007.
	As Registrar General for England and Wales, I have been asked to reply to your Parliamentary Question asking what is the purpose of the General Register Office's digitisation of vital events (DoVE) project; whether it is intended to change the current service of CD-ROM and fiche provision; and, if so, what assessment has been made of the likely impact on customers of libraries and small archives. (HL2642)
	The DoVE project involves the scanning of259 million civil registration records held by the General Register Office (GRO) and the data-capture of those records in order to create an electronic index of the scanned images. The records date from 1837 and cover all births, deaths, marriages and still births registered in England and Wales since that time.
	A separate project, Registration Online (RON) is implementing a system enabling much more rapid capture centrally of new registrations. From April 2007 it is therefore intended to withdraw the sale of new CD-ROM and microfiche copies of the GRO index, and the RON index data for new registrations will be made available free of charge at the Family Records Centre in London from July 2007. The DoVE index date will start to be made available online, from early 2008, greatly increasing the number of people who have access to this information. It is expected that the DoVE project will be completedby 2009.
	Existing customers with CD-ROMs and fiches will continue to be able to use these resources. However, the GRO expects that most libraries and similar organisations will provide the public with access to the new electronic indexes though internet-connected PCs.

Lord Davies of Oldham: The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician, who has been asked to reply.
	Letter from Karen Dunnell, National Statistician, to Lord Morris dated 22 March 2007.
	As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your recent Question about the rate of economic growth in Manchester and other regional cities of the UK since 2003. (HL2635)
	Estimates of regional economic growth, as measured by gross value added (GVA), are only produced at current prices and do not allow for changes in prices over time (inflation) or differences in regional price levels (purchasing power). They do not, therefore, show growth in real or volume terms.
	The Office for National Statistics publishes regional gross value added using official statistical geographies known as nomenclature of units for territorial statistics (NUTS)1. The NUTS classification corresponds to administrative boundaries of some, but not all, cities of the UK.
	Table 1 shows annual growth for 2003 and 2004 in GVA per capita for each NUTS2 area of the UK. Table 2 shows annual percentage changes in GVA per capita for each NUTS3 area. The latest available estimates are for 2004.
	The full range of published regional GVA estimates is available on the ONS website: www.statistics.gov.uk/statbase/Product.asp?vlnk=14650.
	1. The Nomenclature of units for territorial statistics (NUTS) provides a single uniform breakdown for the production of regional statistics for the European Union. There are three levels of NUTS in the UK. These are:
	NUTS1: Government office regions and Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
	NUTS2: 37 areas—individual and groups of counties and unitary authorities.
	NUTS3: 133 areas—generally groups of unitary authorities or districts, also known as local areas.
	
		
			 Table 1 
			 NUTS2 gross value added1 per capita percentage change 
			 GVA per-capita percentage change 2003 2004 
			 Tees Valley and Durham 4.8% 5.9% 
			 Northumberland and Tyne and Wear 6.1% 5.9% 
			 Cumbria 6.1% 5.5% 
			 Cheshire 3.7% 4.5% 
			 Greater Manchester 5.4% 5.8% 
			 Lancashire 4.6% 5.2% 
			 Merseyside 5.8% 5.5% 
			 East Riding and North Lincolnshire 5.5% 5.0% 
			 North Yorkshire 6.0% 5.2% 
			 South Yorkshire 6.1% 5.6% 
			 West Yorkshire 5.2% 4.9% 
			 Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire 6.1% 6.0% 
			 Leicestershire, Rutland and Northamptonshire 6.7% 6.4% 
			 Lincolnshire 6.4% 4.8% 
			 Herefordshire, Worcestershire and Warwickshire 4.4% 4.9% 
			 Shropshire and Staffordshire 5.7% 5.8% 
			 West Midlands 4.9% 5.2% 
			 East Anglia 6.2% 5.8% 
			 Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire 5.1% 5.8% 
			 Essex 7.4% 6.6% 
			 Inner London 6.7% 5.8% 
			 Outer London 4.9% 5.3% 
			 Berkshire, Buckinghamshire and Oxfordshire 5.8% 5.8% 
			 Surrey, East and West Sussex 4.6% 4.4% 
			 Hampshire and Isle of Wight 5.4% 5.3% 
			 Kent 5.4% 5.0% 
			 Gloucestershire, Wiltshire and North Somerset 6.6% 6.1% 
			 Dorset and Somerset 4.7% 5.3% 
			 Cornwall and Isles of Scilly 6.8% 5.9% 
			 Devon 5.5% 4.7% 
			 West Wales and the Valleys 5.3% 5.4% 
			 East Wales 5.6% 5.4% 
			 North Eastern Scotland 3.6% 4.6% 
			 Eastern Scotland 6.4% 5.4% 
			 South Western Scotland 6.1% 5.8% 
			 Highlands and Islands 7.1% 5.6% 
			 Northern Ireland 5.7% 5.6% 
			 1 GVA at current basic prices.   
		
	
	
		
			 Table 2 
			 NUTS 3 gross value added1 per capita annual percentage change 
			 GVA per head annual percentage change 2003 2004 
			 Hartlepool and Stockton-on-Tees 4.3% 6.2% 
			 South Teesside 7.2% 8.4% 
			 Darlington 5.0% 4.8% 
			 Durham CC 3.7% 4.6% 
			 Northumberland 6.1% 6.0% 
			 Tyneside 6.3% 5.8% 
			 Sunderland 5.4% 5.9% 
			 West Cumbria 4.4% 4.5% 
			 East Cumbria 7.4% 6.2% 
			 Halton and Warrington 5.5% 7.6% 
			 Cheshire CC 2.8% 2.9% 
			 Greater Manchester South 5.9% 6.0% 
			 Greater Manchester North 4.5% 5.4% 
			 Blackburn with Darwen 4.6% 5.9% 
			 Blackpool 4.2% 4.7% 
			 Lancashire CC 4.7% 5.1% 
			 East Merseyside 5.5% 5.5% 
			 Liverpool : 6.5% 5.7% 
			 Sefton 6.1% 5.6% 
			 Wirral 4.3% 4.7% 
			 Kingston upon Hull, City of 6.1% 5.9% 
			 East Riding of Yorkshire 5.6% 4.4% 
			 North and North East Lincolnshire 4.9% 5.0% 
			 York 5.3% 5.3% 
			 North Yorkshire CC 6.3% 5.1% 
			 Barnsley, Doncaster and Rotherham 6.3% 6.1% 
			 Sheffield 6.0% 4.9% 
			 Bradford 3.1% 3.7% 
			 Leeds 6.2% 5.2% 
			 Calderdale, Kirklees and Wakefield 5.2% 5.0% 
			 Derby 3.3% 4.6% 
			 East Derbyshire 6.3% 5.5% 
			 South and West Derbyshire 6.3% 6.2% 
			 Nottingham 7.6% 7.5% 
			 North Nottinghamshire 5.9% 5.7% 
			 South Nottinghamshire 6.3% 5.9% 
			 Leicester 6.8% 6.7% 
			 Leicestershire CC and Rutland 7.2% 6.4% 
			 Northamptonshire 6.3% 6.3% 
			 Lincolnshire 6.4% 4.8% 
			 Herefordshire, County of 4.9% 5.1% 
			 Worcestershire 5.9% 6.3% 
			 Warwickshire 3.0% 3.5% 
			 Telford and Wrekin 5.0% 5.3% 
			 Shropshire CC 7.0% 6.2% 
			 Stoke-on-Trent 5.6% 5.6% 
			 Staffordshire CC 5.5% 5.8% 
			 Birmingham 4.4% 4.8% 
			 Solihull 7.3 % 6.3% 
			 Coventry 4.0% 5.1% 
			 Dudley and Sandwell 4 3 % 4.9% 
			 Walsall and Wolverhampton 4.7% 5.5% 
			 Peterborough 7.9% 7.7% 
			 Cambridgeshire CC 6.3% 5.6% 
			 Norfolk' 6.2% 5.9% 
			 Suffolk 5.3% 5.3% 
			 Luton 5.0% 5.9% 
			 Bedfordshire CC 5 2% 5.6% 
			 Hertfordshire 5.2% 5.9% 
			 Southend-on-Sea 6.6% 7.1% 
			 Thurrock 6.5% 7.3% 
			 Essex CC 7 6% 6.5% 
			 Inner London—West 4.3% 3.4% 
			 Inner London—East 9.4% 7.7% 
			 Outer London—East and North East 5 0% 5.7% 
			 Outer London—South 6.2% 5.9% 
			 Outer London—West and North West 4.4% 4.8% 
			 Berkshire 5.3% 5.3% 
			 Milton Keynes 7.5% 6.9% 
			 Buckinghamshire CC 5.7% 6.1% 
			 Oxfordshire 6.2% 5.8% 
			 Brighton and Hove 5.2% 4.7% 
			 East Sussex CC 4.9% 5.1% 
			 Surrey 4.9% 4.6% 
			 West Sussex 3.9% 3.6% 
			 Portsmouth 5.4% 5.2% 
			 Southampton 6.7% 6.1% 
			 Hampshire CC 5.3% 5.4% 
			 Isle of Wight 3.4% 3.0% 
			 Medway 4.3% 4.8% 
			 Kent CC 5.6% 5.0% 
			 Bristol, City of 5.6% 5.4% 
			 North and North East Somerset, South Gloucestershire 7.6% 6.8% 
			 Gloucestershire 8.1% 6.7% 
			 Swindon 5.3% 6.1% 
			 Wiltshire CC 5.3% 5.2% 
			 Bournemouth and Poole 5.2% 5.6% 
			 Dorset CC 4.5% 5.4% 
			 Somerset 4.7% 5.1% 
			 Cornwall and Isles of Scilly 6.8% 5.9% 
			 Plymouth 5.0% 4.4% 
			 Torbay 3.1% 4.5% 
			 Devon CC 6.0% 4.9% 
			 Isle of Anglesey 5.3% 4.4% 
			 Gwynedd 8.5% 5.9% 
			 Conwy and Denbighshire 6.3% 5.6% 
			 South West Wales 4.4% 4.5% 
			 Central Valleys 5.4% 5.5% 
			 Gwent Valleys 3.9% 5.4% 
			 Bridgend and Neath Port Talbot 4.2% 5.0% 
			 Swansea 6.4% 6.5% 
			 Monmouthshire and Newport 5.6% 5.6% 
			 Cardiff and Vale of Glamorgan 7.1% 6.3% 
			 Flintshire and Wrexham 2.3% 3.7% 
			 Powys 6.3% 4.5% 
			 Aberdeen City, Aberdeenshire and North East Moray 3.6% 4.6% 
			 Angus and Dundee City 7.4% 6.3% 
			 Clackmannanshire and Fife 5.3% 5.1% 
			 East Lothian and Midlothian 7.9% 6.5% 
			 Scottish Borders 5.0% 3.7% 
			 Edinburgh, City of 7.1% 5.2% 
			 Falkirk 5.3% 5.2% 
			 Perth & Kinross and Stirling 6.2% 5.4% 
			 West Lothian 4.3% 5.3% 
			 East and West Dunbartonshire and Helensburgh & Lomond 5.5% 6.5% 
			 Dumfries and Galloway 4.0% 3.0% 
			 East Ayrshire and North Ayrshire Mainland 4.9% 5.2% 
			 Glasgow City 7.1% 6.1% 
			 Inverclyde, East Renfrewshire and Renfrewshire 5.8% 6.7% 
			 North Lanarkshire 7.7% 6.2% 
			 South Ayrshire 4.2% 5.0% 
			 South Lanarkshire 4.3% 4.4% 
			 Caithness & Sutherland and Ross & Cromarty 7.5% 5.9% 
			 Inverness & Nairn and Moray, Badenoch & Strathspey 9.5% 6.5% 
			 Lochaber, Skye & Lochalsh and Argyll and the Islands 3 3% 3.5% 
			 Eilean Siar (Western Isles) 9.4% 7.2% 
			 Orkney Islands 6.6% 5.5% 
			 Shetland Islands 6.3% 5.4% 
			 Belfast 7.2% 7.3% 
			 Outer Belfast 4.8% 4.9% 
			 East of Northern Ireland 4.9% 4.9% 
			 North of Northern Ireland 5.3% 5.0% 
			 West and South of Northern Ireland 6.6% 6.1% 
			 1 GVA at current basic prices

Lord McKenzie of Luton: Under our proposed pension reforms, more people will receive a more generous state pension, providing a solid foundation for private saving. The proportion of pensioners entitled to housing benefit is, therefore, expected to be reduced over time. Housing benefit will continue to provide important targeted support for those who would otherwise struggle to be in decent accommodation.
	This would be true of any pension system. Under a flat-rate universal pension, set at the level of the guarantee credit and uprated by earnings, around 12 per cent of elderly benefit units would still be entitled to housing benefit in 2050.
	Entitlement projections are shown in the table below. Long-term projections of entitlement to housing benefit such as these are subject to inevitable uncertainty, including future patterns of owner occupation, household formation and private saving. In particular, the assumptions behind the projections do not include potential increases in private saving due to the proposed policy of auto-enrolment into occupational pensions or personal accounts.
	
		
			 Housing benefit entitlement: proportion of elderly benefit units 
			  Entitlement 
			 2005-06 21 per cent to 22 per cent 
			 2012-13 18 per cent to 20 per cent 
			 2020-21 16 per cent to 17 per cent 
			 2030-31 14 per cent to 15 per cent 
			 2040-41 14 per cent to 15 per cent 
			 2050-51 15 per cent to 16 per cent 
		
	
	The projections are estimated by a different method from that used to obtain pension credit entitlement figures. The latter are taken from the DWP's dynamic microsimulation model Pensim2, which is particularly well suited to long-term projections of entitlement to income-related benefits. However, Pensim2 cannot currently be used to forecast entitlement to housing benefit. Entitlement to housing benefit has been derived using the policy simulation model, a robust but less complex model. Care should therefore be taken when interpreting these projections alongside those for pension credit.
	Notes:
	1. These projections assume that housing benefit policies as they stand at 2007-08, the end of the current planning period, continue indefinitely.
	2. The projections also take into account the reforms to the state pension system proposed in the Pensions Bill, which will affect pensioner housing benefit entitlement: continued earnings uprating of the standard guarantee credit; the savings credit maximum uprated by earnings from 2008 and then by prices from 2015; earnings uprating of the basic state pension from 2012; and measures to improve coverage of state pensions described in the Pensions Bill introduced from 2010.
	3. Estimates do not take into account the potential increases in private saving due to auto-enrolment or personal accounts.
	4. Entitlement to housing benefit is as a result of being in rented accommodation and either having qualifying income below the relevant threshold or being "passported" as a result of entitlement to another benefit. In the case of pensioners, the guarantee element of pension credit offers automatic entitlement to housing benefit. Currently, around 84 per cent to 87 per cent of the elderly housing benefit-entitled population are also entitled to some element of pension credit.
	5. Elderly cases are defined as single people over female state-pension age or couples where at least one partner is over female state-pension age.
	6. Estimates cover all elderly cases in the private household population in Great Britain. The data source is the Family Resources Survey.
	7. Entitlement figures are calibrated against caseloads in 2004-05 using the National Statistics publication Income Related Benefits—Estimates of Take-Up in 2004-2005.
	8. Estimates of the numbers entitled are given as ranges in order to account for possible biases in estimates from data that is less than perfect. They also take account of the effects of sampling variation. It is assumed that the size of this range remains constant in future years relative to the changing proportion of eligible elderly households.

Lord Rooker: The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has agreed in principle that the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure (DCAL) should join with Fáilte Ireland in part-sponsorship funding for the 2007 Rally Ireland event. The final amount will be subject to the approval of a fully costed business case.
	The route of the rally has not been finalised therefore the part of the event that will take place in County Fermanagh has not yet been determined.

Lord Alton of Liverpool: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What assessment they have made of the statement by the Rwandan Foreign Minister, Charles Murigande, that Rwanda will withdraw its troops from the African Union mission in Darfur because of inadequate equipment and lack of resources to fund their soldiers.

Lord Triesman: The UN Human Rights Council (HRC) mission to Sudan issued a damning report on 12 March, confirming what we already knew about the grave human rights situation in Darfur. The Organisation of Islamic Conference, and some Asian states, said that the council should not discuss the report on procedural grounds because the mission had not gone to Sudan. In statements to the Council, my right honourable friend the Minister of State for Trade, Investment and Foreign Affairs, Ian McCartney, and the UK Permanent Representative to the HRC have called on it to take effective action on Darfur and not become mired in procedural debates. We do not accept that the mission report is not valid, as the mission failed to go to Sudan. The Government of Sudan reneged on their commitment to co-operate with the mission and refused to grant visas to all members of the mission, so, rightly, none of the members went. The report is based on the assessments of UN humanitarian agencies, the African Union in Addis Ababa and the UN High Commissioner for Refugees in eastern Chad. All of these organisations, which have large numbers of staff operating in Darfur and eastern Chad, continue to report an appalling human rights and humanitarian situation there. We will continue to press the HRC-to take forward the recommendations in the report.